Judge refuses orders part II

[Limeoutsider]

Alabama's top judge refused to back down in his fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument and lashed out at his colleagues who ordered it removed from the rotunda of the state judicial building. "I will never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend," Chief Justice Roy Moore said in a fiery defense of the 5,300-pound granite marker, as supporters cheered and prayed on the building's steps.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Alabama's top judge refused to back down in his fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument and lashed out at his colleagues who ordered it removed from the rotunda of the state judicial building. "I will never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend," Chief Justice Roy Moore said in a fiery defense of the 5,300-pound granite marker, as supporters cheered and prayed on the building's steps.

The 2 probs with this is....

1.) Our laws are based in English common law, and they had a different belief & interpretation about God back then than many do now; add to that, the Constitutional idea of the government not favoring one religion over another comes from seeing what that did to the European countries that combined government & religion.

Second, the bigger philosophical arguments about 'what is justice, what is right vs. wrong and why does it matter?' that both the U.S. and Western society as a whole base their systems of justice on come from ancient Greek philosophers, whom didn't even belive in just one God (if the specific, individual philosophers were even religous themselves...); these philosophies were explored further by European minds over many centuries (again, different interpretaions of worship become involved) as well as early American minds (Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Ben Franklin, et al) who themselves in many cases were freethinking Diests - who were also the ones that came up with the thing about government favoring one religion over another. So "our laws & country" are derived from people and cultures who had vastly differing ideas about God in the first place. There was a time in America, for example, when God didn't want us to eat meat on Fridays.

So the judge's idea that our system is dependant on God misses that our system is derived from many different interpreations and ideas of what "God" is in the first place. His whole argument is based on ideas and philosophical arguments from people with different cultural backgrounds and interpretations of God.

Now I'm worn out...... On the other hand, go ahead and keep the marker up, I mean, what's the big deal?

 

[Knox The Hatter]

hmmm...

Thinking further on this issue...
I don't see the harm of the Ten Commandments being posted in a public place. While the religious aspects of the Ten Commandments are prominent (Duh!), they don't exclude the sensibilities of people of other faiths, or even of those who question God's existence. I think they're a fine set of commandments to live by, if you ask me.
But then, I didn't attend Law School for twelve years, I only have my opinions.
We all can benefit from the clarification of Supreme Court decisions without some kind of political agenda hidden within the clarification by media analysts, et al...

 

[BigJim]

I feel sorry for Christians sometimes. People like this tar them all with the fundementalist brush. That's what I was referring to in the gay marriage thread.

 

[JoBelle]

Indeed, Jim. Too many people who are true in heart to their God are going to be clumped in with this self agrandizing lunatic.

Personally, if I were to smack into that hunk of rock, I'd probably be offended. Not because of what it says, but because I know that the intended purpose was to to further a particular group's beliefs in a forum meant for government and not religion.

I too happen to think the ten commandments are a fine set of social rules. Who's going to argue that not cheating on your spouse, or not killing someone are bad ideas? Sure there is that God thing mentioned, but if you don't believe, then self-edit that part. 😛 I personally try to live by the commandments under a different name. "Jo's system of doing nice things and not being overly mean." Ta-dah, pretty neat stuff huh?

If nothing else comes of this situation. It proves that there is a viable means to display our differeing opinions in the country. No one is losing life or limb over this. Sure, we may be offended, but I'm JUST AS OFFENDED by CNN's coverage that implyed that all Southerners are Bible thumping redbecks. 🙄 The man took a stand. The law differed in opinion. He challenges....and so goes the system. The only loss here is that the 5000 bucks he's being fined is going to likely come from the pockets of the citizens of the state since he's a public official. I think he'd better start washing cars down at the Buddhist temple to make up with the folks who weren't on his side. I figure at a buck a car.......hmmmmmmm

Joby

 

[BigJim]

Indeed, Jim. Too many people who are true in heart to their God are going to be clumped in with this self agrandizing lunatic.

Personally, if I were to smack into that hunk of rock, I'd probably be offended. Not because of what it says, but because I know that the intended purpose was to to further a particular group's beliefs in a forum meant for government and not religion.

I'm glad you said that Jo. People who give normal folks a bad name were the ones I was directing the "300 years behind the rest of the world" crack at.

Sure, we may be offended, but I'm JUST AS OFFENDED by CNN's coverage that implyed that all Southerners are Bible thumping redbecks. 🙄
Joby

Speaking of that, I realise the way I phrased my last post in the Bush & Gay Marriage thread might have caused offence to someone like you, because I typed part of it to indicate a southern accent. I hope you realise I intended no offence to people like yourself who don't seek to overly push fundementalist religion into every walk of public office. I typed it that way because it seems to be the way such people seem to talk, most of the time. 🙂

 

[mabus]

I think in this case, the ideas BEHIND the monument are what's really at issue.

I was always annoyed when athiests succeed in taking down nativity scenes on Christmas, because it implied that they were right, they were in control, and the hell with freedom of religion and speech. I mean, come on! It's a little manger with a little baby and some wise men and some sheep and cows. If that offends you, you've got issues - ignoring the obvious thought that you could just NOT LOOK AT IT! But in those cases, the nativity scene is just that - a nativity scene. We're not moving to a theocracy, it's just a decoration. If the pagans want to put up a Christmas display, let them, I say! That is always a case of pettiness, and everyone knows it, but don't have time to fight those pathetic people, because they have actual jobs, and families.

But when you look at this Judge Moore, the guy looks deranged! This really, really doesn't fit into the category of a simple manger scene, or little Ten Commandments plaque on the wall. When the manger scene is taken down, people get over it! This guy is so gung ho behind this, and that monument is so damn big, and his supporters are so inflamed, you know there's something more to this. This seems like a case where religion WILL start becoming part of law, even to those who don't subscribe to his beliefs. THAT'S why people are telling this guy to chill out. And the fact that he's not is why people are worried.

Imagine if a pagan, or an athiest was charged with a crime. Would they get the same Justice with Judge Moore that they would receive from a judge who living in the real world? Hell no! That's what's at issue here. If two people are fighting a case, and one committed adultrey, will that come into play even though that has no relevence to the case? It's written on the plaque. Of course our laws are based on the commandments, but because we are a free country, believing in God only applies to those who choose to believe in Him. Being envious of your neighbor or having an affair isn't illegal. But under the Ten Commandments, it is.

As an example, that would apply to us, imagine that some prude is trying to "moralize" their town, and Jeff is operating the forum from that area. Jeff is brought before that nut job, and the Judge Moore says, "So, you're running a pornographic website, are you, you filthy, sinful heathen!" Jeff's like "Uhh, it's just an innocent tickling forum, there's nothing pornographic about it.." "I'll decide what's offensive!" and he yanks open the law books to find the maximum sentence for him that he can create. Another judge wouldn't even hear the case, it's so frivilous.

Now, this is a ridiculous example, of course, it won't happen, but that's what people will fear with this whole commandment thing. They'll have to join that guy's church if they want a lenient sentence, or to win that case. I think there's more to this whole thing that just a big hunk of stone...